Challenge to the Skeptics: What's Your Theory?

[wirebender]

Yeah -- kinda like that.. Disasters of biblical proportions.. We sweat equations and chemistry and science -- and they give us prose and fear...

No offense, but I haven't seen any equations, chemistry, or science from you to date. If you have any of either, I would love to see it; particularly the equations.

 

[skookerasbil]

Really don't want to discourage you from pondering the issue. And it's against my better judgement to pursue this issue with you.. As I said, your observation about CO2 not being a significant contributing factor to HEAT RETENTION is correct -- but NOT because it doesn't retain heat.. Here's a definitive Global Warming skeptic making that argument CORRECTLY... Please read it carefully...

I read carefully. I have been reading carefully for years. One thing you, and and the rest of the luke warmers have in common is that you never, I REPEAT NEVER, discuss the laws of physics upon which you make your assumptions, nor do you ever, I REPEAT, EVER show your work. Pointing to an article written by a professor who also doesn't show is work is no more and no less than an appeal to authority. An authority that I don't recognize because they don't discuss how they get around the laws of physics and validate their assumptions.

Again, I posted my reasoning, the laws of physics that support it and did the work in public for anyone to critique. You didn't point out a single error in my work nor any law of physics that I applied incorrectly. You hinted around being a science guy and strongly suggested that you can do the math and yet, you have pointed out no error in the work I have done. That being the case, I suppose my work is correct but flies in the face of what you choose to believe.

That's fine, but don't pretend you know something that I don't when you can't back it up with anything approaching hard science and aren't willing to show the work in public for scrutiny.

wire bro.......its makey-uppey science and the majority know it!!!! Which is why posting on this forum is such a fcukking hoot. Imagine going to the ballpark every day and KNOWING your team is going to win!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Most definately worth a re-post...............


Im a skeptic.

My theory is that the global warming alarmists science is bogus.



And my theory wins in something called the real world...........which is not even debatable anywhere on the internet.........that is unless somebody can provide a link to show me America cares to ANY extent about the "grave threat".

Please...........give me something assholes................

Knock yourselves out..............

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah -- kinda like that.. Disasters of biblical proportions.. We sweat equations and chemistry and science -- and they give us prose and fear...

No offense, but I haven't seen any equations, chemistry, or science from you to date. If you have any of either, I would love to see it; particularly the equations.

I think you're pushing here beyond a friendly discussion. If you really WANT me to take you down on math and science -- you'll have to make it worth it.. And STALKING me on this board will do the trick.

Right NOW there's no math to be required. It's a debate over whether certain gases are immune from "retaining heat". ALL matter in any of it's forms does that. To deny that is to deny ALL of thermodynamics (because you can't determine a PVT curve for something that doesn't "retain heat") and molecular theory (because the energy that doesn't get reradiated as EM (IR) at absorption freqs ends up as "heat"). So please do not make this claim:

You didn't point out a single error in my work nor any law of physics that I applied incorrectly.

Again...

I've given you 5 scientists (and myself) who REPEAT what you call a lie. And BTW --- they are biased IN YOUR FAVOR!! NOT luke-warmers...

PLEASE stop pushing here.. I don't want to have the confrontation.. Let's move on.

 

[wirebender]

I think you're pushing here beyond a friendly discussion. If you really WANT me to take you down on math and science -- you'll have to make it worth it.. And STALKING me on this board will do the trick.

Pardon me, but how many times do you suppose I have asked you to show the math and name the physical laws upon which you base your claims?

As to stalking you, I was here first.

And if simply doing the math to demostrate that you are right doesn't make it worth your while, I don't know what does. Are you applying for a grant or something?

Right NOW there's no math to be required.

When you make the claim that the cooler atmosphere can heat up the warmer earth, math is required if you expect to be taken seriously. If you believe that downdwelling radiation is reaching, and being absorbed by the surface of the earth, math is required if you expect to be taken seriously.

It's a debate over whether certain gases are immune from "retaining heat". ALL matter in any of it's forms does that.

Sorry, but that simply is not true. So called greenhouse gasses absorb energy and immediately emit exactly the same amount. Where do you suppose the retention of heat comes in? Perhaps they create just a little bit and keep it on hand in case they feel a bit chilly?

To deny that is to deny ALL of thermodynamics (because you can't determine a PVT curve for something that doesn't "retain heat") and molecular theory (because the energy that doesn't get reradiated as EM (IR) at absorption freqs ends up as "heat"). So please do not make this claim:

Check out the absorption and emission spectra of your favorite greenhouse gas. Precisely the opposite. No retention of anyting.

I've given you 5 scientists (and myself) who REPEAT what you call a lie. And BTW --- they are biased IN YOUR FAVOR!! NOT luke-warmers...

Five scientists who also didn't show their work. None of the warmists or luke warmers ever show the basic work. They simply assume a violation of the law of conservation of energy and the first and second laws of thermodynamics and go from there. It is universal. Scientists who begin with the basic physics don't promote greenhouse theory or AGW because they know from the basics that it simply isn't happening.

PLEASE stop pushing here.. I don't want to have the confrontation.. Let's move on.

You are the one who keeps making claims that you aren't proving. I am just pointing them out. If that represents confrontation to you, sorry. To me it just represents pointing out false claims.

Here is hard proof that CO2 does not trap long wave radiation if you care to look:

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical in the approprate band widths indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2 because CO2 does not absorb and retain IR.

 

[midcan5]

"If all the problems of science were solved, it would not touch any of life's problems." Wittgenstein

From the manuscript for your memoirs MidCan? I'd get into this with you -- but it's basically non-responsive to THIS thread anyways.. "cars coated with the smog and ash of fires" --- you're a hoot.

Yeah -- kinda like that.. Disasters of biblical proportions.. We sweat equations and chemistry and science -- and they give us prose and fear...

Fear? We have nothing to fear, we will be long dead. But then ask yourself which works better? Working or argument? Think of Kuhn's paradigm shift - and the only fear I hear is from corporate tools who spout doom and gloom about the effect on the economy as the same people destroy the earth. Anyone who appreciates nature and the outdoors must recognize the impact dumb men have had on the earth. Look only around at sprawl.

"Impossibility statements are the very foundation of science. It is impossible to: travel faster than the speed of light; create or destroy matter-energy; build a perpetual motion machine, etc. By respecting impossibility theorems we avoid wasting resources on projects that are bound to fail. Therefore economists should be very interested in impossibility theorems, especially the one to be demonstrated here, namely that it is impossible for the world economy to grow its way out of poverty and environmental degradation. In other words, sustainable growth is impossible." Herman E. Daly / Kenneth N. Townsend [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Valuing-Earth-Economics-Ecology-Ethics/dp/0262540681/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics (9780262540681): Herman E. Daly, Kenneth N. Townsend: Books[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

"If all the problems of science were solved, it would not touch any of life's problems." Wittgenstein

From the manuscript for your memoirs MidCan? I'd get into this with you -- but it's basically non-responsive to THIS thread anyways.. "cars coated with the smog and ash of fires" --- you're a hoot.

Yeah -- kinda like that.. Disasters of biblical proportions.. We sweat equations and chemistry and science -- and they give us prose and fear...

Fear? We have nothing to fear, we will be long dead. But then ask yourself which works better? Working or argument? Think of Kuhn's paradigm shift - and the only fear I hear is from corporate tools who spout doom and gloom about the effect on the economy as the same people destroy the earth. Anyone who appreciates nature and the outdoors must recognize the impact dumb men have had on the earth. Look only around at sprawl.

"Impossibility statements are the very foundation of science. It is impossible to: travel faster than the speed of light; create or destroy matter-energy; build a perpetual motion machine, etc. By respecting impossibility theorems we avoid wasting resources on projects that are bound to fail. Therefore economists should be very interested in impossibility theorems, especially the one to be demonstrated here, namely that it is impossible for the world economy to grow its way out of poverty and environmental degradation. In other words, sustainable growth is impossible." Herman E. Daly / Kenneth N. Townsend [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Valuing-Earth-Economics-Ecology-Ethics/dp/0262540681/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics (9780262540681): Herman E. Daly, Kenneth N. Townsend: Books[/ame]

All the environmental extremists are philosophers...........

And exactly how does the world "grow its way out of poverty" s0n??

I cant wait to hear this one given the avatar for the lose. Yo Frank........stay tuned bro..........reading responses from the real hyper-fringe is always worth a look back..........

 

[Oddball]

"If all the problems of science were solved, it would not touch any of life's problems." Wittgenstein

From the manuscript for your memoirs MidCan? I'd get into this with you -- but it's basically non-responsive to THIS thread anyways.. "cars coated with the smog and ash of fires" --- you're a hoot.

Yeah -- kinda like that.. Disasters of biblical proportions.. We sweat equations and chemistry and science -- and they give us prose and fear...

Fear? We have nothing to fear, we will be long dead. But then ask yourself which works better? Working or argument? Think of Kuhn's paradigm shift - and the only fear I hear is from corporate tools who spout doom and gloom about the effect on the economy as the same people destroy the earth. Anyone who appreciates nature and the outdoors must recognize the impact dumb men have had on the earth. Look only around at sprawl.

"Impossibility statements are the very foundation of science. It is impossible to: travel faster than the speed of light; create or destroy matter-energy; build a perpetual motion machine, etc. By respecting impossibility theorems we avoid wasting resources on projects that are bound to fail. Therefore economists should be very interested in impossibility theorems, especially the one to be demonstrated here, namely that it is impossible for the world economy to grow its way out of poverty and environmental degradation. In other words, sustainable growth is impossible." Herman E. Daly / Kenneth N. Townsend [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Valuing-Earth-Economics-Ecology-Ethics/dp/0262540681/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics (9780262540681): Herman E. Daly, Kenneth N. Townsend: Books[/ame]

All the usual non sequiturs, appeals to authority, irrelevant quotes and links to midcant's book of the moment quote, that we've come to expect....With a heaping helping of Pascal's wager thrown in on the side for good measure.

Thanks for chiming in to inadvertently underscore my point.

 

[Old Rocks]

The fancier ones throw pages of really bad math, call on magical EM hypothesis, and generally make a fool of themselves.

So tell me rocks, what sort of math error did I make? Which physical law did I not apply correctly? Which claim did I make that I didn't support with mathematics to prove my point?

You admit that the science is over your head and you claim I have put forward bad math? How would you know rocks? What clue do you have as to whether the work I did is right or wrong? You can't do it yourself because by your own admission it is over your head.

You are a cheerleader waving your pompoms.

Tell me rocks, if the radiation emitted by the surface of the earth is not an EM field, what, pray tell, is it? If the radiation emitted by the atmosphere isn't an EM field, what else might it be? Tell me rocks, how might energy move in opposite directions on the same vector? Write an email to your favorite high priest and ask. If you get a reply, it will be calling you a denier and your question won't be answered.

And all of them claim to be far smarter than the scientists that have spent decades studying the climate and atmospheric physics.

Have you seen the academic requirements for climate science? Hate to tell you rocks but atmospheric physics isn't on the menu. Take a look at the requirements of a degree in climatology vs a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Climatology as a program of study more closely resembles alchemy than any actual science.

Damn, Bentwire, you are about a dumb ass. One of the leading climatologists in the world, if not the leading climatologist;

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

Dr. James E. Hansen

Affiliation: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA

E-mail: [email protected]


Phone: (212) 678-5500


Curriculum Vitae

Download CV (PDF)
Education:

B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
Publications

Go to bibliography
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/cv/cv_hansen_201106.pdf

Dr. James Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and is Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa, receiving his bachelor’s degree with highest distinction in physics and mathematics, master’s degree in astronomy, and Ph. D. in physics in 1967. Dr. Hansen was a visiting student, at the Institute of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto and Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan from 1965-1966. He received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Iowa in 1967. Except for 1969, when he was an NSF post-doctoral scientist at Leiden Observatory under Prof. H.C. van de Hulst, he has spent his post-doctoral career at NASA GISS.
In his early research Dr. Hansen used telescopic observations of Venus to extract detailed information on the physical properties of the cloud and haze particles that veil Venus. Since the mid-1970s, Dr. Hansen has focused on studies and computer simulations of the Earth's climate, for the purpose of understanding the human impact on global climate. He is best known for his testimony on climate change to Congress in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. In recent years Dr. Hansen has drawn attention to the danger of passing climate tipping points, producing irreversible climate impacts that would yield a different planet from the one on which civilization developed. Dr. Hansen disputes the contention, of fossil fuel interests and governments that support them, that it is an almost god-given fact that all fossil fuels must be burned with their combustion products discharged into the atmosphere. Instead Dr. Hansen has outlined steps that are needed to stabilize climate, with a cleaner atmosphere and ocean, and he emphasizes the need for the public to influence government and industry policies.
Dr. Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 and, in 2001, received the Heinz Award for environment and the American Geophysical Union's Roger Revelle Medal. Dr. Hansen received the World Wildlife Federation’s Conservation Medal from the Duke of Edinburgh in 2006 and was designated by Time Magazine as one of the world’s 100 most influential people in 2006. In 2007 Dr. Hansen won the Dan David Prize in the field of Quest for Energy, the Leo Szilard Award of the American Physical Society for Use of Physics for the Benefit of Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. In 2008, he won the Common Wealth Award for Distinguished Service in Science and was also awarded both the Ohio State University’s Bownocker Medal and the Desert Research Institute’s Nevada Medal. In 2009, Dr. Hansen received the American Meteorological Society’s Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal. In 2010 he received the Sophie Prize and the Blue Planet Prize.

Looks to me like Dr. Hansen's qualifications are exceptional for the field he is in. In fact, I should post a number of the leading climatologists bona fides just to show what a lie you fellows engage in.

 

[daveman]

Looks to me like Dr. Hansen's qualifications are exceptional for the field he is in. In fact, I should post a number of the leading climatologists bona fides just to show what a lie you fellows engage in.

Hansen's pretty good at breaking Federal ethics guidelines, too. You'd think he'd put that on his CV.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Looks to me like Dr. Hansen's qualifications are exceptional for the field he is in. In fact, I should post a number of the leading climatologists bona fides just to show what a lie you fellows engage in.

Hansen's pretty good at breaking Federal ethics guidelines, too. You'd think he'd put that on his CV.

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?


B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Phil Jones and Michael Mann aren't the leading climate scientists anymore?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Looks to me like Dr. Hansen's qualifications are exceptional for the field he is in. In fact, I should post a number of the leading climatologists bona fides just to show what a lie you fellows engage in.

Hansen's pretty good at breaking Federal ethics guidelines, too. You'd think he'd put that on his CV.

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?


B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

We agree he has degrees in the sciences, yes

 

[ScienceRocks]

So Phil Jones and Michael Mann aren't the leading climate scientists anymore?

Phil jones and Michael mann ranks pretty close to to Hansen.

Philip D. Jones (born 1952) is a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, where he works as a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences. Jones holds a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Lancaster, and an MSc and PhD from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.[citation needed] Jones has spent his entire career with East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).[1]

Michael Mann
Education A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998)[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

These people are at the top of there fucking game people. You that say they don't know physics are wrong. You don't get PHD's in Physics without knowing it.

 

[Oddball]

Looks to me like Dr. Hansen's qualifications are exceptional for the field he is in. In fact, I should post a number of the leading climatologists bona fides just to show what a lie you fellows engage in.

Hansen's pretty good at breaking Federal ethics guidelines, too. You'd think he'd put that on his CV.

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?


B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

We can agree that he has a lot of letters after his name....Enough to land himself a nice cushy job workin' for The Man.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can't help myself.. Gotta respond to the BentWire:

For a guy who mindlessly badgers others about scientific method and proofs and process --even when they have no idea of the ability of whom they are lecturing --- you certainly have no reservations about posting data and results from OTHER'S WORK without attribution --- do you? In the interest of science -- let me comment on that "mystery data" you posted back there.

It is the right kind of experiment to show that CO2 is not a major contributor to trapping heat, but there's 2 problems. One is your conclusion...

There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2 because CO2 does not absorb and retain IR.

Since you won't give up this faulty premise that CO2 doesn't "retain heat" (and now it's morphed to IR), you can't get to the reason for no changes in the satellite observations.. I GAVE you the grown-up scientific explanation (with a paper citation) explaining that of the absorption bands at roughly 1.7, 2.8, 4.1 and 13 something -- Only the band around 4.1 is NOT masked by identical and OVERWHELMING absorption by water vapor. Look at the placement of the bands relative to one another. When water vapor FILTERS out 98% of the energy at those bands --- it's hard for a miniscule concentrations of CO2 to have anything left to work on. (caveat -- see my statement to the warmers about the assumption of water vapor being present on previous page) NOT -- because CO2 is INCAPABLE of retaining heat from absorbed EM at any of those bands..

So the 2nd problem with the "mystery data" is that is barely shows the band at 13 and DOES NOT let us look at the band around 4.1 um -- which is the ONLY CO2 band that MIGHT show a historical increase. You might go back to whereever you LIFTED that data from and SEE if there is data for wavenumbers corresponding to around 4 um. (The leftside of that graph is MOST of the 13 band and is markered with the label CO2)

If I hadn't had a beer and this message board hadn't eaten my graph that was posted in this thread (and is now mysteriously gone), I'd have those numbers exactly. You have taken all the incentive out of being 2 digit accurate or even caring about what you think. The wavelengths are close enough so that any fool with 1st year Physics could figure it out...

BTW man.. Some old business...

1) Please stop asserting this.. I've not made any such remark and indeed I've notified you of that.

When you make the claim that the cooler atmosphere can heat up the warmer earth, math is required if you expect to be taken seriously.

2) me thinks you're confusing EM IR radiation with heat because you make the following statement using BOTH interchangeably.

in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2 because CO2 does not absorb and retain IR.

You've said (errantly and repeatedly) "it doesn't retain heat" or the seemingly interchangeable "it doesn't retain IR".
Of course it doesn't RETAIN IR, but it retains HEAT from the percent of EM energy absorbed and not allowed to pass (by transmission). Shit GLOWS IR because it's hot and the atomic thingies are all excited and give off photons of IR. But it's the heat energy that powers that emission. So in a sense -0- anything with a measurable temperature reserves the right to puke out an IR photon whenever it wants to. Heat energy need not propagate as EM. It can be thermal Conduction or thermal Convection. And if you KNOW what "heat capacity" or c (sub) p is, look down the table at:

Gases - Specific Heats and Individual Gas Constants

to find the heat capacity of CO2 -- right there in front of your face.. See .8444 Kjoule/kg-degK. That's your mantra for tonight. Compare it to other gases you find the table. That's the key to understanding the real reason for those satellite results and what else to look for to confirm them.

 

[daveman]

Looks to me like Dr. Hansen's qualifications are exceptional for the field he is in. In fact, I should post a number of the leading climatologists bona fides just to show what a lie you fellows engage in.

Hansen's pretty good at breaking Federal ethics guidelines, too. You'd think he'd put that on his CV.

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?


B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

He seems to be willing to pervert science for money.

Still wanna claim he's credible?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hansen's pretty good at breaking Federal ethics guidelines, too. You'd think he'd put that on his CV.

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?


B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

He seems to be willing to pervert science for money.

Still wanna claim he's credible?

Admit that he is a smart man that likely understands the science. Sure he might be perverting it, but you have to be a smart sob to do what he is doing if so.

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't need to be smart to make numbers lie -- just look at the Congressional Budget Office...

 

[IanC]

Can't help myself.. Gotta respond to the BentWire:

surely you understand that there is no point. nothing could get past the walls built around his favourite ideas. there are fanatics on both sides of this debate and words have little power with them. you see, they KNOW they are right.